1) Has anyone on this list EVER strained milk and found chameitz (or
anything else)? Have you even spoken to someone who did?
2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super
corporations that run the milk industry?
On 3/23/2017 5:36 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> The reason to buy milk (or any other liquid) before pesach, and
preferably to strain it before pesach as well, is so that if there *is*
any chamets in there one can rely on bittul lach belach. I am unsure
whether that would apply to chocolate, which was once liquid but is now
solid.
>
> Kitniyos isn't the issue, chamets is. Without a hechsher to ensure
that they're not *deliberately* adding something that has chamets in it,

It seems to me the halachic definition of anoos ("circumstances beyond
one's control?") has been enlarged in my lifetime, perhaps over the last
number of generations (since the enlightenment?). At one extreme are
determinists (it's all out of our control) and at the other are "will
vincet omnia" (it's all under our control). Once you get past the Torah's
case, how is the line drawn (and why there?)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170323/a7b97879/attachment-0001.htm>

?Vayikra el Moshe? And HE called to Moses.
According to the Rabbis, Moses had many names (cf. Megilla 13; Lev, Rabba 1:3).
He was called Yered, ?because Manna descended (yarad) through his intervention.?
He was known as Avigdor, ?for he fenced in (gadar) the breaches of Israel.? He was
nicknamed Avisucco, ?because he was like a protecting tabernacle (succah) for his
people.?
Yet when God calls to him, He uses only the name by which Pharaoh?s daughter
termed him, Moshe, a name which recalled Moses?s lowly estate, oppressed,
thrown into the Nile and dragged from its waters. It was exactly because Moses
still knew how to answer to that name that he was fit to be ruler over his people; but
more important, even in his prosperity, he never forgot from where he came.
Similarly, the Jewish people were redeemed from Egypt because they did not alter
their names. They retained the traditions and way of life of their fathers.
There is no respect for others without humility in one's self.
Henri Frederic Amiel, (Swiss moral philosopher, poet, and critic)

I am moving this discussion to Avodah.
It would be helpful if you would identify this poseik and elaborate
on his reasons.
And for the record, one pesak does not a halacha make, as far as I
am concerned.
YL
At 06:03 AM 3/26/2017, you wrote:
>You presume incorrectly. In the eyes of that beit din, she's still
>considered male. But according to the only psak by a posek who actually
>gives his reasons, she's female, since she apparently had sex-change
>surgery. So while that beit din required her to pretend to be male and
>give a get, it doesn't mean she actually was.
>
>Lisa
>
>On 3/26/2017 12:44 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> > At 04:16 AM 3/26/2017, Lisa Liel wrote:
> >> Old news. She gave the get.
> >
> > A "she" cannot give a get, according to the Torah. Only a "he" can.
> > So I have to presume that in the eyes of halacha this person is still
> > considered a man.
> >
> > YL
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170326/cd04a36a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/26/2017 2:38 PM, Micha Berger via Areivim wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:41:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote:
> : Please see
> : http://tinyurl.com/m5m6q8m
> : It does not get much more bizarre as a couple that arrived at a Beth
> : Din in Israel were quarreling over a 'get'. It appears one of the woman
> : is a transgender, formerly the husband in the family who is now living
> : as a woman.
> We have discussed a similar case on Avodah, as the Tzitz Eliezer deals with
> the hypothetical case of a transsexual who refused to give a gett.
To be more accurate, the Tzitz Eliezer discusses whether a woman whose
husband became a woman would require a get. There was no case given,
and no refusal. Just the hypothetical of whether she'd require one.
> Here there is really nothing to talk about, as haakhah revolves around some
> physical marker of sex or another, not what gender the person thinks
> they ought to be.
According to the YNet article, she did have surgery, which is precisely
what the Tzitz Eliezer was addressing in that teshuva.
Lisa
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

There are two relevant teshuvot by the Tzitz Eliezer. The first one is
in his lengthy teshuva on transplants, Volume X, Part 25, Chapter 26.
In section 6, after having finished the meat of the teshuva, he turns
to the question of "other significant/organic alterations of the body,
such as a person who changes from male to female, or vice versa."
I recommend you reading it in the original, rather than relying on
whatever summary I might provide.
However, in his survey of the halakhic literature on the question, he
brings a source that discusses whether Eliyahu's wife would have been
an agunah after he went up to Shamayim. The conclusion in that source
was that she would not, because while an eshet ish is forbidden, an
eshet mal'ach is not. The Tzitz Eliezer comments on this that it would
seem the same thing would apply in this case, because an eshet isha is
not either. Note that this seems to imply that he assumes that a person
who now appears to be male (having originally been female) or vice versa,
*is* what they appear to be. Otherwise, his comment makes no sense.
The second teshuva is in Volume XI, Part 78. It's a case of a child
who was born looking essentially morphologically female (that is, the
child appeared to have a vulva and vagina), but tested XY-male in its
chromosomes, and had testicular tissue in one of the labia. The question
was whether that tissue could be removed. So there were issues of (a)
what is the sex of the child halakhically, and (b) is there an issue of
sirus in removing the testicular tissue.
The Tzitz Eliezer writes: "The external sexual organs of the newborn in
question, as you have described, appear as those of a female, and it has
no external indications of male organs. Only the special examinations
[gene testing] showed that male cells were present. And therefore,
in my opinion, even if we were to leave it as it is, it would have the
status of a female, since the external organs which can be seen by the
naked eye are the determinant in Jewish law."
In the book Torah and Reason, by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Zimmerman, starting on
page 230, he talks about how the universe is divided into three domains of
size. "One, the world of the macrocosmos, the immense range and vastness
of the universe, the galaxies and the numbulae which involve infinite
distances of billions of billions of l ight years to reach their orbits,
so to speak. Two, the microcosmos, the orld of smallness, which a small
fraction of a billionth of a billionth of an inch is a great universe in
comparison to its infinite smallness. And three: the man-sized world,
where man perceives through his senses." He subsequently continues,
"The Halacha and its human practices, is given to man where man can do
all the Taryag Mitzvot with his 'bare hands.' His units of action are
the units of the man-sized world."
I first read this book decades ago, when I was in the process of becoming
observant, and it impressed me a lot. And this point stuck with me:
halakha doesn't care about the microscopic. If it isn't visible to the
naked eye, it isn't relevant. DNA isn't relevant. Chromosomes aren't
relevant. They can add information and perhaps tilt the balance of an
argument, but that's all. We don't ask whether paramecia are considered
dagim or chayot when it comes to determining their kashrut. Kashrut
doesn't apply to them, because they are invisible to the naked eye.
I do a lot of genealogy work when I have the chance, and I'm constantly
running across people who think that a DNA test that says they have X%
Jewish background means they're Jewish. I have to keep explaining to
them that we don't care about DNA. To the best of my knowledge, we
wouldn't even accept a DNA paternity test as proof of halakhic parentage.
So when the Tzitz Eliezer writes that "the external organs which can be
seen by the naked eye are the determinant in Jewish law", the first word
that comes to mind is "pshitta". But apparently it isn't so pashut,
because I keep hearing people raising the issue of chromosomes on this
subject.
While it wasn't mentioned here, another common argument I've heard
is that people who have undergone sex change surgery can't procreate,
and that this is evidence that they are not the sex they claim to be.
Leaving aside the obvious refutation of infertile people, I find that
argument particularly problematic, because it implies that if medical
science reaches the point where they *can* procreate, the arguer will
withdraw his objections, which is patently not the case.
There is a game called Whack-a-Mole, where you use a hammer to hit the
heads of mechanical moles, and each time you do, other moles pop out of
other holes. There's a variation of this game that I sometimes see being
used when it comes to this topic. I have seen people address the first
of the two teshuvot, and claim that it can't be used, because it's only
theoretical, and isn't being applied to a specific case. And at the
same time, I have seen people address the second of the two teshuvot,
and claim that it can't be used, because it only refers to a newborn
whose sex is being determined at that time. However, the two teshuvot
together make it fairly clear that both arguments are spurious.
Lastly, I'd like to address what Prof. Levine wrote: "one pesak does
not a halacha make". This is certainly true. However, Rav Eliezer
Yehuda Waldenberg z'l, author of the Tzitz Eliezer, was a *major* posek.
Considered at least on par with Rav Moshe Feinstein z'l in Israel, and an
expert in medical halakhot. While every single other psak or claim (it's
sometimes difficult to know which something should be categorized as)
that I have read, stating that sex change surgery has no halakhic effect
on a person's sex, gives no reason for the determination other than,
"Of course it doesn't", or "Because eww..." I don't think that's valid
halakhic reasoning (l'oniyut daati), and none of the people in question
are, to the best of my understanding, of the stature of R' Waldenberg.
Lisa

I recommend seeing the discussion at
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php
?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F
The Leiv Aryeh disagrees with the Tzitz Eliezer (and R Yosef Palaji, whom
ZE cites)
As does the Besamim Rosh, but I'm not sure I would rely on the Besmamim
Rosh. (Which claims to be a long-lost set of teshuvos by the Rosh, but
it believed by most rabbanim and the academic community to be a forgery.)
Similarly RYSE, who doesn't discuss the case of gett, but does give a pesaq
that presumes the gender does not chanafe. Etc...
It is clear that the ZE is in the minority.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I should point out that in addition to disagreeing with the Tzitz Eliezer
(ZE) by invoking chromosomes -- which I agree should be outside halakhah --
internal organs and historical organs at time of birth would ordinarily
be within the purview of halachic discussion. Machloqes is tenable,
and indeed, exists.
There is less history of discussion of how to assign halachic gender to
a post-op transsexual than of discussion of surgery on an androgenus
or metumtum and the halachic impact.
And along those lines, R' Alfred Cohen has an article in the RJJ
Journal, Fall 1999
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/cohen-1.htm>.
His focus appears to be morw about permissibility of adjusting an
androgenus or metumtum to a single gender, but along the way there
are indications about the halakhah we're discussing -- the resulting
gender post-op.
Notably, RMShternbuch appears to leave the androgynus in their safeiq
status, the ZE (REW) was already discussed,
the Ibn Ezra (as read by RYSE) would consider future relations to be
mishkav zakhar despite being assigned femal gender (again, gender does
not change with surgery), whereas
RYSElyashiv would consider all bi'ah to be shelo kedarka -- which sounds
much like the ZE in theory, in that the issur is that and not mishkav
zakha -- an issur that presumes that being assigned female sex surgically
does change halachic gender to female. But in discussing a different din
than the ZE's case of gittin, one in which he still ends up machmir.
Now for the most relevant postion of RAC's article:
Doctors usually want to "fix" the hermaphrodite or one who has
ambiguous sexual organs by turning the child into a "girl" through
removal of the male organs. (They also usually construct a vagina-like
opening and administer hormones or hormone-suppressants, as needed.)
Consequently, one of the first issues that has to be dealt with is
the biblical prohibition of "petzua daka" (Devarim 23:2), marriage
with whom is forbidden by the Torah. [35]
Furthermore, as noted, the androgynous is considered by Jewish law as
possibly a male and possibly a female, and therefore obligated to
observe all the commandments incumbent upon a man. By turning the
person into a female only, the doctors are taking away from this person
the ability and the privilege of performing certain mitzvot. Again,
this is a halachic problem.
If the doctors turned this child into a female (through surgery and
hormone therapy) but the child is actually a male, [36] and this "female"
grows up and gets married to a man-would this constitute a homosexual
relationship, which is strictly censured by the Torah? [37]
To avoid these multiple problems, Rav Sternbuch writes [38] that a child
with ambiguous sexual indicia should always be "turned" into a male
rather than a female. The only exception [39] would be in the case of a
child which is clearly a female (verifiable by her having all the
external female organs), although possessing in addition certain
ambiguous traits. [40]
One of the leading poskim in the world today is the Israeli sage, Rav
Eliezer Waldenberg, author of Tzitz Eliezer, who is often consulted
particularly on medical problems. A doctor was once confronted with a
case of a child born with apparent intersex characteristics, and he
turned to Rav Waldenberg for guidance. In addition to addressing the
specific problem, Rav Waldenberg availed himself of this opportunity to
expand upon his view concerning similar situations and how they should
be dealt with.
The child in question was born with external organs which seemed to be
female; however, there also seemed to be an organ resembling testes.
Further complicating the situation was that a chromosomal test of the
infant indicated it was a male. After surgery, it was found to have no
internal sexual organs. The doctor wrote that it was medically easier
to make the child into a girl, but asked two questions: is it
permissible to make a child whose genetic identity is male, into a
female? Further more, is it forbidden to remove the "testes"?
In his responsum, Rav Waldenberg lays down the principle that in these
matters, the determining factor is the appearance of the external
organs: the key is the visual perception. Consequently, he rules that
since all the external organs of this child are of a girl, it is a
girl. [41] The only problem is removal of the testes, which is forbidden
due to the prohibition of castration. However, in this case he rules,
since the child is a girl, one can remove the testes, since that
operation is not what would make her sterile. Furthermore, even if a
child were an androgynous, it would still be permissible to remove the
testes, without violating the prohibition of sterilization - since in
any case this child is not capable of having a child. This conclusion
is based on the Minchat Chinuch, [42] who rules that the prohibition
against sterilizing (sirus) cannot apply to a person who cannot have
children anyway. [43]
Having given an answer to the specific problem raised by the doctor,
Rav Waldenberg then proceeds to expand upon the topic. Considering that
this issue is on the cutting edge of modern medical knowledge and
technique, his responsum is a highly pertinent foundation for
addressing the halachic issues which are now arising.
In the view of Rav Waldenberg, even if a true androgynous were born,
having both sets of external organs (a circumstance which is very
rare), it is permissible to remove some of these excess organs. This
ruling is predicated on the halachic and medical conclusion that the
child would not be able in any case to have children. The next question
then is which set of organs to remove or modify? According to Rav
Waldenberg, it is preferable to make this child a boy, for two reasons:
(A) Since there are those who opine that an androgynous can have
children, and
(B) Since we are not certain whether the child is actually a boy or a
girl, by removing the female organs we are making a child into a boy,
who will be able to perform more mitzvot. Consequently, that is the
desirable choice.
At this point, Rav Waldenberg adds a most controversial opinion: if it
were advisable (medically) to turn this hermaphrodite into a female,
that option is halachically permissible. By removing the male organs,
the child will be able to function as a female. According to him, the
sexual identity of the child is not established until after the
procedure. [44] He is also of the opinion that it is best to perform this
procedure while the child is still quite young, before it is obligated
to perform mitzvot. [45] There is a further caveat added by Rav
Waldenberg: before any organs are removed, it is necessary to determine
if the procedure would indeed result in the child's being truly a
female (presumably this could be determined by means of sophisticated
medical scans and / or genetic analytical tests). [46]
A third opinion on this matter is expressed by Rav Eliashiv, [47] whose
view is that if this ambiguous child were transformed into a "girl" by
medical science, it would be forbidden for any man to have sexual
relations with her. Since her "vagina" is merely an opening constructed
by doctors, there are no sexual relations but rather "wasting of the
man's seed", which is an act forbidden by the Torah (Vayikra 18:22). [48]
Furthermore, in his commentary on his verse, Ibn Ezra cites the opinion
of Rabbenu Chananel, which posits that intercourse between a male and
another male who has an artificial vagina is considered sodomy.
In summary, we are left with three halachic opinion: [49]
(A) Make the child into a boy.
(B) It is preferable to make the child a boy, but it is permissible to
make it a girl.
(C) It is forbidden to make it a girl.
Sex Change
The option of "changing" a person's sex which the halacha addresses is
certainly and obviously not merely fulfilling someone's whim. According
to Nishmat Avraham, there is no question that this is not permitted for
a normal male/female. [50]
Even in cases where doctors felt it was necessary to alter or "adjust"
the sexual identity of a child born with ambiguous genitals, or for
some other traumatic reason, it seems that the procedure is not as
successful as it may superficially appear to be. A case was recently
reported in the news media [51] of a boy who, due to a dreadful accident
when he was eight months old, was "turned into a girl" by his concerned
doctors. In spite of surgery, hormone administration, and all the
cultural trappings of a girl-dolls, dresses, etc. - the child's
transition was not as seamless as it appeared. "...Despite his
feminized body and upbringing, John in fact rejected his new gender. He
tore of the dresses, dreamed of becoming a mechanic and even tried to
urinate standing up - despite his reworked anatomy." "I thought I was a
freak or something," he told the study's authors. After finally finding
out the truth about his status, he proceeded to have his breasts
removed and his genitals rebuilt. At 25, he married a woman and adopted
children.
Researchers say that this case, though unusual, has important
implications for the issue of influencing sexuality. "You can't
magically decide somebody is either male or female." [52]
Some unusual problems do occasionally arise if a tumtum or androgynous
was "fixed" as an infant and later in life feels the need for a change
in sexual identification. Rav Eliezer Waldenberg spends a considerable
amount of time examining various aspects of this dilemma: [53] If, after
marriage, a man or woman undergoes a sex change operation, does the
other spouse have to give (or receive) a get? Although he does not
specifically say so, it is apparent from his writing that Rav
Waldenberg assumes that any person undergoing such a change must have
been originally a tumtum/androgynous, who was operated on to create a
specific sexual identity. [54] Rav Waldenberg even speculates what
blessing this person should recite in the daily prayers - those for a
man or a woman? [55] Perhaps, he suggests, the blessing should be
reworded, "Blessed are You... who changed me into a..."
Is Surgery Required?
How about the option of doing nothing - what would be the halachic
status of a tumtum/androgynous?
The optimal response when a tumtum or androgynous is born might appear
to be to seek medical advice and employ whatever surgical techniques
are available to obviate the problem or at least to seek to determine
the true sexual identity of the child.
Surprisingly, the Rishonim do not agree as to the correct halachic
approach: Rashba [56] opined that the child should be operated on if
possible, and, if found to be masculine, should be circumcised. [57]
...
35. The author of Nishmat Avraham, Even HaEzer 44, reports that Rav.
S.Z. Auerbach wrote to him that the prohibition of petzua daka refers
only to the issur of such a person getting married, but that there is
no special negative commandment about making someone into a petzua
daka. This should not be confused with the negative commandment of
sirus.
36. This possibility is not as bizarre as it sounds. In 1998, The New
York Times featured an article about an individual to whom this was
done. For decades, the child was brought up as a female, but "it never
felt right." Finally, he had the operations reversed and assumed his
true identity as a man-even getting married to a woman! See further on
this at the end of this article.
37. In Hama'or Kislev-Tevet 5733, Rabbi Amsel suggests that even
administering female hormones to a male may be forbidden, under the
prohibition of a man's wearing women's garments.
38. Assia I, p. 144.
39. Nishmat Avraham, ibid, reports that Rav Auerbach agreed with him on
this point.
40. For example, sometimes what appears to be a penis is in reality an
enlarged clitoris.
41. Tzitz Eliezer, XI, no. 78
42. 291, note 4. See also Chatam Sofer, Even HaEzer 20 and 17.
43. However, see the Chazon Ish, Even HaEzer 13, s.v. "vehaRashba". In
Shabbat 111a, the Gemara states that the prohibition of sirus
(castration, sterilization) does not apply to an elderly person. Even
though the Gemara ultimately rejects this view, the Minchat Chinuch
apparently feels that the concept has validity, even if it did not
apply to the particular situation under discussion in the Talmud. See
also, Sefer Hasidim 620 and Assia I, p. 143.
44. He maintains that this is also the opinion of the Meiri in Yevamot;
in my view, it may also be the solution to a cryptic statement by the
Rogachover Rebbe in his Tzafnat Paneach (Yibum, chap. 10, Kelaim, 10,
Shut 60:144). The Rogachover writes that the sexual identity of a
tumtum who is operated on becomes established only at that point, and
not retroactively. However, this is disputed by the opinion expressed
in the Tosafot Yevamot 83, s.v. "Beria...", which holds that the
surgery merely reveals and elucidates that which was really there
before, but hidden from our view.
45. See the question of R. Neuwirth, cited in Nishmat Avraham, Even
HaEzer p. 137.
46. Rav Waldenberg does speculate whether we should conclude that
medical science has perfected treatment of the situation. For an
understanding of why it might make a difference which rationale is
employed, and when it is proper to fall back on the argument that there
has been a change in our physical nature, see the article by Rabbi
Dovid Cohen on "Shinuy Hatevah" in the Journal of Halacha and
Contemporary Society, Vol 31.
47. In Shevilei Harefuah, 5739, pamphlet 2, 5739.
48. See Even HaEzer 20: "Whoever has sexual relations with a woman via
one of her limbs, is to be punished by the Court (because of "wasting
seed")."
49. Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Deah 322, describes a child born with a penis
and testicles; however, there is no opening in the penis, but rather at
the point where the penis and testicles meet. He rules that the child
is certainly a male and requires a brit. The Beit Yosef Even HaEzer 5
quotes the Rosh that such a child is certainly capable of begetting
children and that he requires milah.
50. Nishmat Avraham, Even HaEzer 44, note 3. Interestingly, he cites no
proof for his ruling. However, see Tzitz Eliezer XXV, chapter 26, no.
6.
51. Newsweek, March 24, 1997, p. 66.
52. Ibid.
53. Tzitz Eliezer, section 10, 25:26:6. He cites the Terumat HaDeshen
102, Rashi to Yevamot 49a, Minchat Chinuch 203, Birkei Yosef Even
HaEzer 17, and others. It is noteworthy that this question is also
discussed in Teshuvot Besamim Rosh, ibid, but not quoted by Rav
Waldenberg. Possibly this is due to the problematic authorship of
Besamim Rosh which, although attributed to the Rosh, who lived in the
13-14 century, could not have been written by him. Or at least, some of
the responsa were not written by the Rosh as a case in point, the one
at issue here mentions an opinion of the Noda Biyehuda, who lived in
the eighteenth century!
54. In passing, Rav Waldenberg touches on a different halachic
question: he is of the opinion that if the female organs were removed
from an individual and transplanted into another female (who was
lacking them), who thereafter conceived and bore a child, that child is
definitely the offspring of the birth mother, not the organ donor.
55. It is interesting that he does not relate this to the milah problem
which a convert has concerning the blessing "...who has not made me a
gentile..."
56. Yevamot 70a, "efshar lo achshav likora, uvar minhol hu." See Sefer
Habrit, pp. 94-95, for various explanations of these divergent
opinions.
57. Yevamot, ibid. R. Akiva Eiger writes in his notes to Yoreh Deah
262:3 that "there is no obligation to operate on and [subsequently] to
circumcise a tumtum, and this is clear..."
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and
http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodahhttp://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)